Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 386 (JK)

Bashir Ahmad Rather v. State

2003-12-09

S.K.GUPTA

body2003
Per Honble Mr. Justice S.K. Gupta (Oral) The petitioner Bashir Ahmad Wani son of Ghulam Rasool Wani R/o Nutnussa, Handwara was detained pursuant to an order of detention bearing No-DMK/PSA/53 of 2002 dated: 15.3.2002 issued by District Magistrate, Kupwara, and respondent No. 2, under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). Subsequently the order of detention was confirmed by the Government for a period of 24 months against the detenue who came to be lodged in Central Jail, Kotebalwal, Jammu. The order of detention has been challenged by the detenu through his father namely, Ghulam Rasool Rather on variety of grounds. 2. To begin with, it is submitted that the detaining authority is stated to have recorded satisfaction on the basis of the allegations levelled in the FIR referred to in the grounds of detention. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this was the only material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the satisfaction was drawn for passing the order of detention. The detaining authority was, therefore, bound to provide the material, copies of the FIR, seizure memo, disclosure statement, investigation conducted and the other material referred to in the grounds of detention to the detenu to enable him to make an effective and meaningful representation against the said detention before the competent authority/Government. It was next contended that the detenu was initially arrested on 13.3.2001 by the security forces and later on booked in FIR No. 113/2001 Police Station, Kupwara for offence under section 7/25 Arms Act. The detenu was later on released on bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction vide order/docket dated: 13.4.2001. The detention order nowhere points out any subversive activities attributed to the detenu during the period he remained on bail and till he was taken in preventive custody and thus do not provide any compelling circumstance to the detaining authority for passing the detention order (for eight months that he was enjoying liberty as a free citizen). This fact having not been disclosed either in the dossier or in the grounds of detention, it is manifest that the detaining authority was not made aware of the fact that detenu was enlarged on bail and the detention order being silent about these facts, amounts to total absence of application of mind and renders the detention illegal. This fact having not been disclosed either in the dossier or in the grounds of detention, it is manifest that the detaining authority was not made aware of the fact that detenu was enlarged on bail and the detention order being silent about these facts, amounts to total absence of application of mind and renders the detention illegal. It was further submitted that the grounds of detention being vague, and indefinite, also came in the way of the detenu to make effective representation to be made before the competent authority against his detention. 3. The respondent-detaining authority has filed the counter. It is submitted in ground (d) thereof that the contents of the warrant and grounds of detention were served, read over and explained to the detenu. It is further stated that the detenu was informed about his right to make an effective representation against his detention if he so desired. It was further stated that the detention order was drawn due to compelling reasons after application of mind to the fact that ordinary criminal law was not sufficient to deter the detenu from continuing his activities. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the detention record made available by the Government Advocate. 5. The detention order dated: 15.3.2002 available on the file reads as under:- "Government of Jammu and Kashmir Office of the District Magistrate, Kupwara (Kmr:) Order No. SMK/PSA/53 of 2002 Dated :15.3.2002 Whereas, I, Syed Haq Nawaz, District Magistrate, Kupwara am satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri Bashir Ahmad Rather S/o Gh. Rasool Rather R/O Natnussa Tehsil Handwara District: Kupwara age 26 years from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary to do so, Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, 1, Syed Haq Nawaz, District Magistrate, Kupwara hereby direct that the said Bashir Ahmad Rather S/o Gh. Rasool Rather R/o Nastnussa Tehsil Handwara District Kupwara be detained in District Jail, Kotebalwal for a period of 6 months. Sd/- District Magistrate, Kupwara. The aforesaid order on its plain reading nowhere points out the basis of drawing satisfaction by the detaining authority that the detention of the detenu in preventive custody is necessitated for maintaining the security of the State. Sd/- District Magistrate, Kupwara. The aforesaid order on its plain reading nowhere points out the basis of drawing satisfaction by the detaining authority that the detention of the detenu in preventive custody is necessitated for maintaining the security of the State. This clearly shows that detention order is not based on record and the satisfaction recorded is without application of mind by the detaining authority. The detaining authority has nowhere, in the grounds of detention, stated that it was aware of the fact that the detenu has been released on bail in FIR No. 113 of 2001 in which he came to be arrested about eight months prior to the detention order was served upon him. The grounds further do not disclose the details of the activities prejudicial to the security of the State attributed to the detenu which form the basis of compelling reasons for his detention in preventive custody. 5. Mr. T. Khaja, Govt: Advocate appearing for the respondents, when taken through the detention order, candidly conceded the fact relating to the release of the detenu on bail in FIR No. 113 of 2001 in which he stood arrested on 13.3.2001. He also admitted that the grounds of detention do not disclose the details of the prejudicial activities attributed to the detenu during the period he remained on bail and till his preventive detention. All these facts, when taken together in its cumulative, clearly disclose the non-application of mind by the detaining authority in drawing the requisite satisfaction before issuing the detention order against the detenu. An identical proposition came up for consideration before the Apex Court in "Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Anr." (AIR 1987 SC 137) and was held as under: - "In our view this is the short manner in which the two cases can be disposed of. If the petitioner is found disturbing law and order or misusing the bail granted to him, the authorities would be at liberty to move the appropriate Court to get the bail orders cancelled. One does not know how the detaining authority would have acted if he was made aware of the above details. We are not satisfied that this is a fit case to resort to preventive detention. We refrain from referring to the other grounds urged before us and from examining them. The petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first ground". 6. We are not satisfied that this is a fit case to resort to preventive detention. We refrain from referring to the other grounds urged before us and from examining them. The petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first ground". 6. As regards the contention of the detenu that he had not been supplied the material on which the detaining authority based its satisfaction for framing the detention order, neither the translated in script of the material has been provided nor the grounds of detention read over and explained to the detenu in the language understood by him so as to enable him to make an effective representation before the competent authority. It is significant to refer to the receipt of grounds of detention and the same reproduced as under". RECEIPT OF GROUNDS OF DETENTION "Received the grounds of detention from District Magistrate, Kupwara vide his order No. DMK/PSA 53 of 2002 dated: 15.3. 2002 consisting of one leaves through Dy. Superintendent Central Jail Jammu Kotebalwal today on _______________ along with copies of FIR No. Dossiers, interrogation report and letter No. DMK/Conf : /418-20 dated 15-03-2002." The contents of the grounds of detention were read over and explained to him in English/Urdu/Kashmiri/Language which Understood fully, I, have also been informed that I can make the representation to the Govt. against my detention order if so desired." 7. Receiption its plain reading and on its face value clearly disclosed that grounds of detention consisting one leave was provided along with copy of the FIR, dossier, and interrogation report to the detenu. It does not, however, specifically state as to in which language grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenu which he fully understood. Contrary to the receipt of grounds of detention referred to above, the detaining authority in their counter in para (d) categorically stated that only grounds of detention and the contents of warrant were served, read over and explained to the detenu and also informed him of his right to make a representation. In reply to Para 4 of the petition, the reply filed by the respondents was that the grounds of detention contain all the material details and no prejudice has been caused to the detenu. In reply to Para 4 of the petition, the reply filed by the respondents was that the grounds of detention contain all the material details and no prejudice has been caused to the detenu. This clearly shows that neither the material on which the detaining authority based his satisfaction for passing the detention order nor the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu in the language understood by him nor the translated script of the material in the language understood by the detenu, were supplied to the detenu and thus prevented him from making representation against his detention. In such circumstances, the detenu cannot be stated to have been communicated the grounds of detention as mandated by Art.22 (5) of the Constitution. 8. Again in Sophia Ghulam Mohmmad Bham v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 3051), the Apex Court reiterated and reads as under :- "......... The right to be communicated the grounds of detention flows from Article 22(5) while the right to be supplied all the material on which the grounds are based flows from the right given to the detenu top make a representation can be made and the order of detention can be assailed only when all the grounds on which the order is based are communicated to the detenu and the material on which those grounds are based are also disclosed and copies thereof are supplied to the person detained in his own language...................." 9. Similarly when, the grounds of detention disclose the alleged prejudicial activities attributed to the detenu on the basis of the reports made available to the detaining authority and the copies of such reports on which the detaining authority based its satisfaction were not supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation to the Government against the order of detention, has been held to be fatal to continue detention. Detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because non-supply of such documents would amount to denial of being communicated the grounds of detention and of being afforded the opportunity to make a representation against the said orders to the Government. 10. Detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because non-supply of such documents would amount to denial of being communicated the grounds of detention and of being afforded the opportunity to make a representation against the said orders to the Government. 10. The Apex Court in "Powanamnul v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors." 1999 (2) SCC 413 held as under :- "The amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Art. 22 (5) extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof in the language understood by the detenu but also to supplying their translation in script or language which is understandable to the detenu. Failure to do so would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order." 11. The detaining authority is required to be satisfied only on the basis of the record/material provided/made available by sponsoring authority and not on the grounds of detention which are distantly formulated by him alone. This clearly exhibits only the recalcitrant attitude of the detaining authority as to the casual and cavalier manner in which they fiddle with the liberty of the individual and pass detention order without application of mind. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the candid concession of Mr. Tassaduq Husain Khaja Government Advocate, when taken through the entire detention record of the detenue produced in the court, I am clearly of the view that the detention order cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, vitiated. The impugned order is, accordingly, quashed. Respondents the officer having the custody of the corpus of the detenu shall set him at liberty forthwith provided the detenu namely Bashir Ahmad Rather son of Ghulam Rasool Wani resident of Nutnussa Handwara is not required in any other case. The detenue shall be supplied with the copy free of cost and the order be communicated to the concerned for follow up action, by the registry. Record is returned to Government Advocate in the open court.